Humans, science and Religion

I think humans have always been a separate life form than all other life forms on earth. Historically they are the only life form which was able to wonder about the physicality of forces in nature around them and even in degrees to harness nature for their benefit. Thus scientific inquiry and knowledge progressed in stages.

What I remember about scientific inquiry is that an important starting point is to come up with a hypothesis and then test it. In my opinion humans must reach, so to speak, inside themselves in order to hypothesize. To date no other earthly life form other than human has done that. So is such a human quality a physical or a spiritual reality? In my opinion it is a spiritual reality which of necessity involves religion. Otherwise why is it that humans constitute the only life form wherein science has evolved?

Yet scientific inquiry and knowledge is a double edged sword as it can be used either for constructive or beneficial uses or for destructive or malevolent uses. If it is used malevolently then humans are their worst enemy and even constitute a threat to the entire planet.

When I think about it what I think is most destructive to religion is for humans to interject into it superstitions. Historically I think the Founders of the great religions of the world cleansed religion of all superstitions but later humans interjected them into it again! Consequently, collectively speaking humans either became religious believers, agnostics, or atheists.

Personally, I am in the category of believer. What I think science and religion have in common is that both science and religion comes to humanity in stages. If that is true it is reflective of evolution of all life forms on earth.

Whereas the mechanism of progress in science is human inquiry it is, in my opinion, crucial to ask what the mechanism of progress is in religion. It is according to my belief and opinion that the vital life giving mechanism of progress in religion, which comes to humankind incrementally in stages, are, and will always be in the future, arise with the Founders of religions such as a Moses, a Jesus, and a Mohammad. For me personally Baha’u’llah represents God’s latest Revelation of religious truth at this most critical stage of the development of human life on the planet.

Unity of Mankind said:

I think humans have always been a separate life form than all other life forms on earth. Historically they are the only life form which was able to wonder about the physicality of forces in nature around them and even in degrees to harness nature for their benefit. Thus scientific inquiry and knowledge progressed in stages.

What I remember about scientific inquiry is that an important starting point is to come up with a hypothesis and then test it. In my opinion humans must reach, so to speak, inside themselves in order to hypothesize. To date no other earthly life form other than human has done that. So is such a human quality a physical or a spiritual reality? In my opinion it is a spiritual reality which of necessity involves religion. Otherwise why is it that humans constitute the only life form wherein science has evolved?

Yet scientific inquiry and knowledge is a double edged sword as it can be used either for constructive or beneficial uses or for destructive or malevolent uses. If it is used malevolently then humans are their worst enemy and even constitute a threat to the entire planet.

When I think about it what I think is most destructive to religion is for humans to interject into it superstitions. Historically I think the Founders of the great religions of the world cleansed religion of all superstitions but later humans interjected them into it again! Consequently, collectively speaking humans either became religious believers, agnostics, or atheists.

Personally, I am in the category of believer. What I think science and religion have in common is that both science and religion comes to humanity in stages. If that is true it is reflective of evolution of all life forms on earth.

Whereas the mechanism of progress in science is human inquiry it is, in my opinion, crucial to ask what the mechanism of progress is in religion. It is according to my belief and opinion that the vital life giving mechanism of progress in religion, which comes to humankind incrementally in stages, are, and will always be in the future, arise with the Founders of religions such as a Moses, a Jesus, and a Mohammad. For me personally Baha’u’llah represents God’s latest Revelation of religious truth at this most critical stage of the development of human life on the planet.

Click to expand...

What if the founders of the great world religions themselves taught superstitions.

Should we only break free of the mind shackles imposed by lesser men or should we even be prepared to challenge the superstitions of the founders?

Unity of Mankind said:

it is a spiritual reality which of necessity involves religion.

Click to expand...

To me religion is like the cover of a book. It's the level of theology, organizations, rites and ceremonies. The spiritual dimension might be included in a religion but not necessarily. People can and do walk the spiritual path outside of formal religion.

Unity of Mankind said:

I think humans have always been a separate life form than all other life forms on earth. Historically they are the only life form which was able to wonder about the physicality of forces in nature around them and even in degrees to harness nature for their benefit. Thus scientific inquiry and knowledge progressed in stages.

Click to expand...

Humans are part of all animal life on this planet. We evolved out of other life forms to become this current one. We share most everything else with the rest, such as being able to recognize our environment and creatively design and use tools to help manipulate it for our own benefit. Many species do this, and we learned it from evolution, right along with the rest of them. Granted, we take it to a whole new level, but it is not unique to the animal species of the world. This did not begin with us. It just got taken to the next level.

Unity of Mankind said:

What I remember about scientific inquiry is that an important starting point is to come up with a hypothesis and then test it. In my opinion humans must reach, so to speak, inside themselves in order to hypothesize.

Click to expand...

We have to use the imagination. Humans are quite good at this. But then, so may be many other animal species. Look at the way they create games and play. That's using the imagination too, even if it's not to the level of creativity we take it.

Unity of Mankind said:

To date no other earthly life form other than human has done that.

Click to expand...

Untrue, if you take science as an extension of tool use, which it is in fact. Many species creatively come up with way to problem solve. It's all over the place in the animal kingdom. It did not begin with us. To imagine it did, is not only unashamed human hubris, it's unscientific. It's not true.

Unity of Mankind said:

So is such a human quality a physical or a spiritual reality? In my opinion it is a spiritual reality which of necessity involves religion. Otherwise why is it that humans constitute the only life form wherein science has evolved?

Click to expand...

We've just shifted from science, to spirituality. That is a whole other topic! I believe every animal has a spiritual nature too. All life does. We just take it to the level humans do, just like we do with our tool creation we learned from evolution.

Unity of Mankind said:

Yet scientific inquiry and knowledge is a double edged sword as it can be used either for constructive or beneficial uses or for destructive or malevolent uses. If it is used malevolently then humans are their worst enemy and even constitute a threat to the entire planet.

Click to expand...

Science is science. Politics abuse science. Politics and religious agendas, are outside science.... hopefully, anyway.

Unity of Mankind said:

When I think about it what I think is most destructive to religion is for humans to interject into it superstitions. Historically I think the Founders of the great religions of the world cleansed religion of all superstitions but later humans interjected them into it again!

Click to expand...

It's also just they way it goes, but it's the spiritual novice, who begins at the level of magic and superstition. Everyone begins there. With time, they may progress. So when someone at a much higher level of spiritual awakening speaks to them, they will not understand it at any level higher than the stage they are at. And every starts at magic and superstition. That's the "thinking as a child", that the Apostle Paul spoke of.

Unity of Mankind said:

Consequently, collectively speaking humans either became religious believers, agnostics, or atheists.

Click to expand...

Agnostics and atheists are at higher stage of faith development than the magic and mythic stages are. Whether they like it or not, it is a stage of faith, one which rejects mythology as literal facts. In Fowler's research, it falls within the individuative-reflective stage of faith.

Unity of Mankind said:

Personally, I am in the category of believer.

Click to expand...

The real question is, what kind of believer? At which stage of faith? Faith is not a monoperspectival thing, by any means!

Unity of Mankind said:

What I think science and religion have in common is that both science and religion comes to humanity in stages. If that is true it is reflective of evolution of all life forms on earth.

Click to expand...

Exactly! This is exactly what I am saying. It's all about differing levels of perspective. Truth is relative to the level that perceiver is seeing the world through. What is true to one level of faith, is understood quite differently at another, later level.

Unity of Mankind said:

Whereas the mechanism of progress in science is human inquiry it is, in my opinion, crucial to ask what the mechanism of progress is in religion. It is according to my belief and opinion that the vital life giving mechanism of progress in religion, which comes to humankind incrementally in stages,

Click to expand...

This is evolution. We build upon what came before. But it is a mistake to believe that collectively, we have progressed with what you see at the leading edge. Even though humans are quite higher on the evolutionary scale (if you want to look at it that way), not all humans are as evolved as others. We all start at ground zero, and work our way up as we go. But some only go so far, others go much further.

Unity of Mankind said:

are, and will always be in the future, arise with the Founders of religions such as a Moses, a Jesus, and a Mohammad.

Click to expand...

I think it's a mistake to think that those who shine spiritual insight into the world, are only founders of religion. Anyone is capable of that, but creating a religion, was never the point. At least it wasn't for Jesus. Not sure about the other guys.

Unity of Mankind said:

For me personally Baha’u’llah represents God’s latest Revelation of religious truth at this most critical stage of the development of human life on the planet.

Click to expand...

What do you think he has over Jesus? Is there something Jesus missed?

To the OP, I must mention that the ability of insight (to reflect, form an hypothesis to solve a problem) isn't unique to humans. Other primates, dolphins and orcas have also shown signs of it.

Unity of Mankind said:

I think humans have always been a separate life form than all other life forms on earth. Historically they are the only life form which was able to wonder about the physicality of forces in nature around them and even in degrees to harness nature for their benefit. Thus scientific inquiry and knowledge progressed in stages.

What I remember about scientific inquiry is that an important starting point is to come up with a hypothesis and then test it. In my opinion humans must reach, so to speak, inside themselves in order to hypothesize. To date no other earthly life form other than human has done that. So is such a human quality a physical or a spiritual reality? In my opinion it is a spiritual reality which of necessity involves religion. Otherwise why is it that humans constitute the only life form wherein science has evolved?

Click to expand...

Although there are exceptions as has been highlighted by others, the capacity of humans for scientific inquiry clearly exceeds that of any animal by several orders of magnitude. It is like comparing the light from a candle to that of the sun.

Unity of Mankind said:

Yet scientific inquiry and knowledge is a double edged sword as it can be used either for constructive or beneficial uses or for destructive or malevolent uses. If it is used malevolently then humans are their worst enemy and even constitute a threat to the entire planet.

Click to expand...

That is true. We must collectively develop our spiritual and moral capacity to use the tools of science wisely for the benefit of not only humankind but the planet as a whole.

Unity of Mankind said:

When I think about it what I think is most destructive to religion is for humans to interject into it superstitions. Historically I think the Founders of the great religions of the world cleansed religion of all superstitions but later humans interjected them into it again! Consequently, collectively speaking humans either became religious believers, agnostics, or atheists.

Click to expand...

Once again I agree there is a cycle with religion where a New Founder comes, renews what has gone before and eventually the light is obscured by acquired traditions and beliefs that were either never intended in the first place or have long outlived their usefulness.

Unity of Mankind said:

Personally, I am in the category of believer. What I think science and religion have in common is that both science and religion comes to humanity in stages. If that is true it is reflective of evolution of all life forms on earth.

Click to expand...

Nicely worded.

Unity of Mankind said:

Whereas the mechanism of progress in science is human inquiry it is, in my opinion, crucial to ask what the mechanism of progress is in religion. It is according to my belief and opinion that the vital life giving mechanism of progress in religion, which comes to humankind incrementally in stages, are, and will always be in the future, arise with the Founders of religions such as a Moses, a Jesus, and a Mohammad. For me personally Baha’u’llah represents God’s latest Revelation of religious truth at this most critical stage of the development of human life on the planet.

Click to expand...

Obviously I agree but I also agree with another that light to the world can come from any of us. Once again its a question of degrees and it is hard to find historical characters whose influences have exceeded those of Christ, Muhammad or Buddha.

Thanks for an uplifting and thoughtful post. I enjoyed it.

danieldemol said:

What if the founders of the great world religions themselves taught superstitions.

Should we only break free of the mind shackles imposed by lesser men or should we even be prepared to challenge the superstitions of the founders?

Click to expand...

What superstitions?

If a male who says he speaks on behalf of God, by variations to his life ownership.

I hear God he said.
I think about God he said.
I think I am God, for I said God is a male.

The human male reasoning.

The male as the scientist, knows that his science concepts are from self, a human and he thinks and imposes names on behalf of all states natural.

Which he claims is his rights, for he says I am the highest form of life, and totally separate to everything else....and he concludes his own ideals in thinking.

So he imposes that the conditions of God is consciousness and thinking.

For if he did not exist then no other inference to human and a human male would be involved in those concepts of self Deism...the inventor/Creator, yet the Destroyer.

So males in human life already confessed to self that they were the opposers of God by self inference....to study, to want, to want to force, to build a machination to force and then apply their force.

All by human male conditions.

A male in science says, I own all concepts in science to tell self wrong or right...so science says, I am the only reality of knowing the truth...by 2 variations to my studies.

Yet to know self is right is to be natural and original to form....the self.....and then to infer what is not right, to destroy, science.

Which proves that science is a contradiction itself.

If a male is a self, looks at multi human life, knowingly each self is by the act of human sexual procreation....and then impose history to our human life.

He would say the 2 original human parents for everyone, yet they had to a multi self first original population. For we know that just 2 humans could not own all the human existing today...for sex is continuance of life.

We also know that the original parents, who first owned the human life presence died.

So we know by that historic information that no human owns any precept about self beyond our own history.

And animal life lives separately in multi diversity and owns the exact same living history as we do....self history and survive by the act of sexual procreation.

The story of ideal and belief is that a male gave his own self as a human permission to claim his belief, plus his group male belief, to coerce by stories is correct just because the group agreed. Which is where the cult standards began....which is science.

An animal does not own our presence in their life being discussed as animals.

They do not discuss our presence in their life as a higher form of their owned species.

We just are living within factually a multi diverse community of Nature, as its commonality.

So when a male has to be told that science is wrong, for it always was, then the history and story science, says science itself is wrong. It was never right or correct, and only male group mentality and coercive stories claim self right by that very condition and applied human belief.

Why natural humanity as a non science community, who know and say, this sort of human mind, natural and original to self invented science, why we know science is wrong and purely based on male egotism, to claim that his telling of stories is absolute.

danieldemol said:

What if the founders of the great world religions themselves taught superstitions.

Click to expand...

If the founders of the great world religions themselves taught superstitions that would be a deal-breaker for me! Generally speaking, I think what founders of religion taught is clouded by remoteness of time when they appeared and by human limitations to understand or interpret what they revealed as time went on, which is why their appeared divisions within them such as in Christianity and Islam; Protestant versus Roman Catholic and Sunni versus Shia.

Windwalker said:

Humans are part of all animal life on this planet. We evolved out of other life forms to become this current one.

Click to expand...

I disagree that humans are only different from animals in degree because I think they are different in kind. Granted, humans share with animals with respect to their physicality but animals have proven themselves to be incapable of developing scientific knowledge as well as developing different philosophies of life. Also, animals are incapable of thinking in the abstract as humans do. Can animals distinguish, for example, between justice and injustice? Also, unlike animals, humans are not bound by instinctual patterns which is why animals are not held responsible in courts of law!

I try to be rational as a thinker when I discuss information.

A human mind says I live with in animals. We share the same environment and it is water and oxygen, supported by other gases, but we are a bio life.

So the mind says we are all here together in one moment.

Science says, which is what I find hard to accept as being rational.....that a male claims no existence existed. Which would mean, no space and no relative information at all.

If he were imposing conditions to say, where did we come from.

You would have to first claim a higher state other than any state you look at, if you were being rational.

If you were a machine owner, you would be imposing created information for a machine reaction, which in relativity does not include "where and why" in that information.

As a male does not own science without mass existing formed in all of its forms, which includes the presence space, for he cannot shift a reaction if space also did not exist.

So what he rationalises as concepts of a Creator is about his own male presence choosing to build a machine and react it. Which cannot in any rationality be claiming from the highest state....which was when everything did not exist.

Yet that male psyche also says, I believe creation was instant, and then I exist also in that instant.

How could that review be rational, when he uses, describes a multi varied reasoning for evolution?

Therefore you would ask why humans used a concept named as spirit and spiritual.

When a male says I know that I termed gas a spirit because I claimed it was a burnt pre existing higher form.

Humans say that their parental presence as a message, recorded for a baby conceived from sperm and an ovary to grow into recognizing and realizing, from atmospheric feed back...recording of image and voices in past lives.

And so if a baby is advised that their parents came out of a spirit body, then their parents also advised them that they could not return into that spirit body.

Yet so many humans in thinking capabilities say, I am a spiritual being, and a part of my owned life/self still exists after I die in its highest form.

How could anyone rationally disclaim that reality of self aware and advised information, without it being rationalized to be owned as science conditions.

For science was in fact invented for a machine building and for that machine to own a reaction.

sun rise said:

To me religion is like the cover of a book. It's the level of theology, organizations, rites and ceremonies. The spiritual dimension might be included in a religion but not necessarily. People can and do walk the spiritual path outside of formal religion.

Click to expand...

My point of view about religion is that it is one process which is determined by an unknowable God. Thus the necessity of it being renewed by God-sent Prophets precisely because of it being clouded over by man-made "theology, organizations, rites and ceremonies".

Windwalker said:

This is evolution. We build upon what came before. But it is a mistake to believe that collectively, we have progressed with what you see at the leading edge.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean by the leading edge. Apparently, you equate religion to an evolutionary process? Unlike you, I equate divine religion as one process determined by God which is periodically renewed by God-sent Prophets, or as Baha'is coin it by Manifestations of God.

Unity of Mankind said:

My point of view about religion is that it is one process which is determined by an unknowable God. Thus the necessity of it being renewed by God-sent Prophets precisely because of it being clouded over by man-made "theology, organizations, rites and ceremonies".

Click to expand...

Males know and said male/man in human existence and presence is the highest form of God....as told by the process of his image reflection.....after he applied a pyramid science reaction to convert ground mass....and formed a reflective self image in that O God reaction of his owned choice.

For science is a living human males owned choice. His owned genetic changes gave him his first ideal of scientific medical advice. Why it occurred as a self teaching ideal against occult changes.

He also detailed that a O mathematical spatial occurrence to prophecies as a body of one, a Prophet returning calculated mass of stone to Earth was a conscious ideal. By the heavenly gases of stone history plus cold radiation metallic mass, held within the gas body as communicators. Ideas.

His original and first act of science conversion advised him that MASS returned by stone, was the gas mass plus radiation mass, by release of a colder stone body mass. A body of that Prophet....other stone mass.

Which was how the gas heavenly body was supported to own a changed conversion, as a changed conversion. Otherwise the reaction would not take place.

Which he explained to his own self a long time ago was relative to trying to shift mass. The prophetic mass replacement therefore owned 2 ideals in science relativity.

It either released its mass into irradiating space or the rest of the mass that he removed came and slammed in to Earth.....which proved that a Prophet was not relative to God or Allah or One O fused body as any form of pre history about stone.

Hence the story said, stone did not exist before stone, and stone only ever owned one natural placement, exactly where it had formed.

rational experiences said:

Science says, which is what I find hard to accept as being rational.....that a male claims no existence existed. Which would mean, no space and no relative information at all.

Click to expand...

So do you consider only males were involved with scientific development with no participation of females whatsoever? That does not strike me as rational at all if that is what you are saying.

Unity of Mankind said:

So do you consider only males were involved with scientific development with no participation of females whatsoever? That does not strike me as rational at all if that is what you are saying.

Click to expand...

Males already told males as humans that they are the only inventor of science, from a male psyche as a human.

What females learnt was taught, why he has always owned that self imposed superiority status in the conditions of science. What females have experienced, is just a relative situation to living with males.

When you decide to discuss God, you have never in any male history not discussed God as a female. Your science quotes as comparing life to science said the spatial body was cold and a womb, where it allowed God the stone body to form as Mother of God.

The relative creation history was only ever about O one body, the planet on which you stood as its owned history in the spatial womb.

Relative history cannot be discussed anywhere else...for if you claim that O stone does not exist, then nor would any Nature ever exist or have existed itself.

Seeing it only exists on our stone Planet O in the history of causes after an atmospheric heavenly body existed. Why males knew that there was no other relative theme beyond God the stone and Earth.

Males teaching science therefore declared that God the O stone planet was a male ownership so that the Satanic occult would not be enabled to seek destructive information, not of a planet history.

rational experiences said:

Males know and said male/man in human existence and presence is the highest form of God....

Click to expand...

So are you saying males are a form of God? You lost me! It strikes me that what you appear to be saying sounds like pantheism which, as I recall, defines all existence to be parts of what they imagine God to be. From a Baha'i standpoint God is impossible to know about except through divine Prophets, or as Baha'is coin it Manifestations of God. They are also known as Primal Mirrors because they mirror forth God rather than being God themselves. Nevertheless, they are of a different order of creation than ordinary humankind according to Baha'i principles.

rational experiences said:

Males already told males as humans that they are the only inventor of science, from a male psyche as a human.

What females learnt was taught, why he has always owned that self imposed superiority status in the conditions of science. What females have experienced, is just a relative situation to living with males.

Click to expand...

I completely reject the idea of the superiority of male over female. I see both male and female as wings of mankind which necessitates both be educated in order for the bird of mankind to fly.

Unity of Mankind said:

I disagree that humans are only different from animals in degree because I think they are different in kind. Granted, humans share with animals with respect to their physicality but animals have proven themselves to be incapable of developing scientific knowledge as well as developing different philosophies of life. Also, animals are incapable of thinking in the abstract as humans do. Can animals distinguish, for example, between justice and injustice? Also, unlike animals, humans are not bound by instinctual patterns which is why animals are not held responsible in courts of law!

Click to expand...

Apparently some can - for example some monkeys will refuse treats given to them when they see another monkey being given something better. They seem genuinely upset about the injustice of this - if we compared the same behaviour in children we would assume likewise.

Also, humans are still bound by much instinctual behaviour despite what you claim. Many people die for example trying to save pets - because it seems instinctual to do so even though most people would value a human life all the time over that of any other species.

Unity of Mankind said:

I disagree that humans are only different from animals in degree because I think they are different in kind. Granted, humans share with animals with respect to their physicality but animals have proven themselves to be incapable of developing scientific knowledge as well as developing different philosophies of life.

Click to expand...

All of that is just degrees in which we take nature's gifts to a higher level of sophistication and complexity. Scientific knowledge, is simply a degree of use of our raw intelligence applied to problem solving, which is not unique to our species. It can easily be demonstrated that using reason to deduce a problem and creatively come up with tools to solve that problem, are to be found throughout the animal kingdom.

The scientific method is unique to humans, but the basis for it is not. Intelligence is not unique to humans. Problem solving is not unique to humans. What we do with what nature gave us, is unique. But then the same thing can be said the rest of the animal species and the unique things they do with the gifts of evolution to them.

Unity of Mankind said:

Also, animals are incapable of thinking in the abstract as humans do.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is true. In order to problem solve, which they do, they have to see something that is not yet materially real. That is demonstrating abstract thought. If you mean self-reflective thought, "who am I", sorts of thought, we really cannot say that is not true, as we can't know exactly what goes on inside the minds of other animal species, such as the dolphin, which everything we know shows their intelligence probably on par with our own.

Who knows what the dolphin thinks about its own existence? Do they think of things like what we would call God? Personally, I believe they probably do, in some manner we would not understand because of how our language we use creates a different perspective of reality for us. But its all part of the same thing. We are not magically "above" creation. We are the unique form that evolution has produced, just as all of them are unique too. We are not superior, not evolution's or God's apple of his eye. We are all the apple of God's eye, including that small little creature crawling on that ground you just smashed because you view yourself as a superior lifeform.

Unity of Mankind said:

Can animals distinguish, for example, between justice and injustice?

Click to expand...

Yes! In fact there are many studies showing a clear sense of fairness and unfairness in animals. And the emotional reactions to the experience of these unfairnesses, is the same as our own! We learned this from evolution. It came before we came on the scene. We did not invent it.

Don't believe me? Inequity aversion in animals - Wikipedia

Unity of Mankind said:

Also, unlike animals, humans are not bound by instinctual patterns which is why animals are not held responsible in courts of law!

Click to expand...

Humans certainly do have instinctual patterns driving them all day long. But due to the rules of conduct within a society, we are expected to reign in those which cause harm to others. You can see that same expectation in other animals with social groups. There is an expectation for the rights of others, and punishments for those who don't follow the rules. This has been observed in many species.

Nothing you are talking about is unique to humans. Only the ways in which we implement these in ways unique to ourselves, just as other animals implement these same things as us, in ways unique to them and their situations. There is a lot of research available out there for you to look into. But it will mean you have to change from thinking of humans as above our outside of the animal kingdom. We are not. It's not just our body types we got from evolution. It's our intelligence, creativity, imagination, self-control, community, and so forth. We are doing the same thing they are, just in our human ways.